Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
PS: The OP is so wrapped up in his soldier's personal issue that he has and continues to compromise his own integrity.
Its unfortunate that you don't understand the concept of integrity in a military environment after your service. Integrity is telling the truth, even when its tough. DADT and integrity are pretty much at odds.
However, there is not an integrity issue for the commander or NCO in DADT - they are not being asked to certify that their soldier or sailors are NOT gay - they aren't being asked to certify anything.
Someone saying they are gay, but not giving you details of their homosexual activity is actually a bit of a grey area right now, and many commanders would ignore it, especially given the clear verbal guidance of the Commander in Chief. Commanders must also weigh ALL of their actions against readiness - if processing someone for DADT impairs readiness, it will NOT HAPPEN - we are at war.
The fact is, most officers and NCOs under a certain age are unwilling to implement DADT unless someone hires a plane to skywrite "I'm Gay" over the base. This is a demographic shift that is tough for older vets and service members to handle, but it is a reality. No one is punished for failing to enforce DADT at this time.
Its unfortunate that you don't understand the concept of integrity in a military environment after your service. Integrity is telling the truth, even when its tough. DADT and integrity are pretty much at odds.
However, there is not an integrity issue for the commander or NCO in DADT - they are not being asked to certify that their soldier or sailors are NOT gay - they aren't being asked to certify anything.
Someone saying they are gay, but not giving you details of their homosexual activity is actually a bit of a grey area right now, and many commanders would ignore it, especially given the clear verbal guidance of the Commander in Chief. Commanders must also weigh ALL of their actions against readiness - if processing someone for DADT impairs readiness, it will NOT HAPPEN - we are at war.
The fact is, most officers and NCOs under a certain age are unwilling to implement DADT unless someone hires a plane to skywrite "I'm Gay" over the base. This is a demographic shift that is tough for older vets and service members to handle, but it is a reality. No one is punished for failing to enforce DADT at this time.
After 30 years in the Army I understand integrity and the military community quite well; I retired in 2008.
My point being that it's one thing for the OP to keep his mouth shut about his soldier but another if he keeps trying to work the system for her benefit and complain about DADT.
NCOs and Officers don't have the luxury of picking and chosing which regulations they will enforce and follow or which ones they will complain about on a public forum.
NCOs and Officers don't have the luxury of picking and chosing which regulations they will enforce and follow or which ones they will complain about on a public forum.
Hmm. I used discretion all the time. If not, my life would have revolved around JAGMAN investigations and writing up report chits, rather than getting the job done.
I'm not one for complaining on public forums about policies coming down from the CoC, but on the other hand, I'm not comfortable about the level of political involvement from folks like the JCS, either. I suspect when DADT goes away, we'll see plenty of active duty folks on forums like this, complaining. I don't like that much, either.
After 30 years in the Army I understand integrity and the military community quite well; I retired in 2008.
My point being that it's one thing for the OP to keep his mouth shut about his soldier but another if he keeps trying to work the system for her benefit and complain about DADT.
NCOs and Officers don't have the luxury of picking and chosing which regulations they will enforce and follow or which ones they will complain about on a public forum.
Balad, I'm not working the system or complaining about DADT. I'm recommending her for the board because she has earned it. I, of course, ran the decision up the chain of command, and every NCO above me from the SGM down, thinks she is deserving of being sent and supports my decision. That's based on her performance, not anything else.
As far as DADT goes, I more or less agree with it because it allows for discretion in these matters. My soldier is not an activist in any way, nor is she flauting her sexual identity or using the military as a private, political platform. If she were, I would have a different approach to this matter entirely.
I think the change in policy that needs to take place is that gay marriages need to be legally recognized. That's something that is larger than the Army or DOD. I brought this issue up on this forum not to complain or to protest or anything else. I am just gauging where we're at as a society, and as military folks, on this. I have made my opinion known. Personally, I don't think homosexuality is the big deal it used to be, and it wouldn't really change much of anything to let gays serve openly. However, I was curious as to how others felt. This is one of those issues where we are going to have to move forward together.
As far as your insinuations that I'm acting with less than full integrity, what would you have me do? Push for an investigation on her because of something she told me once in confidence? (An investigation that would go nowhere because the SecDef has said they need to stop.) I have known her for years. She has never spoken of, or made an issue of, her sexuality. We also haven't spoken of this matter since the one time she told me. She's going on doing what she has always done .. keeping her head down, getting her work done, assisting the team to meet mission. I assume she will continue to do so until she ETSes.
I think you have raised some good issues on this forum. I don't know what you think my views are on this, but I don't appreciate the attacks on my integrity. Everyday, I approach my job with the utmost professionalism, as I'm sure you did when you were active.
I am sorry if I questioned your integrity that wasn't my intent. I was trying to stress the point that when dealing with soldier issues there is a threshold that we shouldn't cross when it conflicts with Army regulations.
New info on future repeal expections... probably 1-5 years away.
White House eyes a compromise on gays in military - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_gays_military;_ylt=Av1Neu6zlaWPJSigZ.vCWCCs0NUE ;_ylu=X3oDMTFlaG0zOGQyBHBvcwM4NQRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9u X3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawN3aGl0ZWhvdXNlZXk - broken link)-
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
